Right Wing Anti-Gay Hate Group Furious At Ryan's Remarks Not To Bring Back DADT

[AmyNation]

Herman Cain jokingly said what the US needed was

"It will be a 20-foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top..."

 

[AmyNation]

Rush Limbaugh

"ome people would say we're already under attack by aliens -- not space aliens, but illegal aliens.... So invasive species like mollusks and spermatozoa are not good, and we've got a federal judge say, "You can't bring it in here," but invasive species in the form of illegal immigration is fine and dandy -- bring 'em on, as many as possible, legalize them wherever we can, wherever they go, no matter what they clog up"

 

[AmyNation]

"...the people whose homes and property are being violated. It's the drive-by that -- the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway."

-John McCain, on why the Arizona law is important

 

[Freewill]

No one gives a crap about DADT you can rest assured you can continue in your bone dance with your buddy.

This is nothing but a distraction from the left.

 

[jtpr312]

Lol, my hatred of gays? That's rich. You don't know me, you don't know a damn thing about me, I never posted one word saying I hate gays, but you automatically judge me as hating gays. I can see you're just one more bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant jackass. I don't need to show any societal harm to society to know that their is no such thing as a gay marriage. I have no problems with gay unions allowing the same tax benefits as married couples, but two people of the same gender living together as a couple is not a marriage. Please don't confuse my grasp of reality with hatred

No one believes that you don't hate homosexuals, son. It's obvious you do.

And learn how to use html tagging correctly, would you please?
The only obvious thing is you're a prejudiced, intolerant bigot. As for learning to use tagging correctly, I have only been on these boards for less than a week, and I can't seem to find any tutorial on how to do so. Rather than act like a blazing jackass you may have directed me on how to find this out.

Being rational? Saying two lesbians or two sodomites shackig up together is a marriage does not mean you are being rational either slick. As for the homos. Loving vs Virginia, though gay marraige may become the law of the land someday, it's not in the same category as Loving vs Virginia because that WAS a civil rights issue based on denying some men and woman equal protection under the law, while that is not the case with homosexual marriage, as homosexuals right now share the same exact rights all other citizens have. Gay men have the same rights as straight men, and gay woman have the same rights as straight woman. If it ever becomes the law of the land, it will based on the redifintion of the word marriage, and not on any denial of rights and it will be enacted by the same types of judges that decided the right to slaughter a baby in the womb is some how tied to a woman's right to privacy. In other words, ignorant, politically motivated activist judges who base their decsions on their own immoralities, poltiical views and party affiliations and not on any real reading of the Constitution or the intents of the Founders.

You are completely wrong that gays have equal protection under the law. They cannot file a federal married tax return, they are not entitled to spousal Social Security death benefits, and a whole raft of other privileges extended to other married people are denied to them. They have the same exact rights as any other man or woman in this nation. EVERY man in this nation has the right to marry ANY woman who will have him and ANY woman in this land has the right to marry ANY man who'll have her that IS equal protection under the law. Unfortunatly homosexuals don't want equality, they want a special dispensation with regards to redifining the word marriage.

So this is a civil rights issues EXACTLY like interracial marriage. Bigots like you used to whine about marriage being redefined for interracial couples, too. "Marriage has always between two people of the same race!!!" Wrong, accepting interacial marriage has nothing to do with the acceptance of deviant behavior.

And just like you, your bigoted predecessors were unable to provide a rational reason for why that should be so. "We've always done it that way" is a stupid reason for perpetuating discrimination. Since the bigots could not provide a rational reason for why that discrimination should be continued, marriage benefits under the law had to be extended to interracial marriages just as they will have to be provided to gay marriages. Yet we do have a good reason. There is no such thing as gay "marriage". Good enough reason for me and any other rational thinking human being.

There is no difference. Sure there is. You don't choose your race, you choose to engage in deviant sexual behavior.

 

[jtpr312]

If your fear or loathing of gays is a result of your religion, then you're interpreting it wrong. I neither fear nor loath people who practice homosexuality, I merely think that there is no such thing as gay marriage and that homosexuality is an immoral activity and shouldn't be thought of as anything other than a deviant sexual practice. As for interpreting it wrong, I don't know what you mean by that, interpreting what wrong? My religion? That's highly unlikely.



It is a tactic used by some people to poke a homophobe with a sharp stick. It is a way of pointing out that some studies have shown that those who have a tendency to be overly homophobic also have an increased tendency to have same sex attractions themselves (that's where the self loathing part comes in). It's a way of pointing out that we've seen time and time again these anti gay preachers and legislators being caught with a Craig's List rent boy. Lol, some studies? That's rich. I can find "some studies" that support just about anything so you'll have to do better than that. I guess we can agree then according to your studies and your observations that all elected democratic party officials are lying, cheating adulterous scumbags, because of the many being caught lying, cheating and commtting adultery right?

You don't have to like us. You can even hate us if you want to (but I think that would make Baby Jesus cry), but you still must give us equal rights.

First off if you are a gay man you ALREADY enjoy the same exact rights as I have, and that EVERY other man in this nation has, which is the right to marry any woman that will have you. If you are a gay female you ALREADY have the same exact rights as any other woman in this nation has, and that is the right to marry any man that will have you. Same rights for ALL citizens, gay, straight, bi or a-sexual. As for baby Jesus Crying, He was a baby, I'm sure He cried all the time like any other baby did.

And the issue is those rights aren’t being acknowledged by the state; and in some cases states have gone so far as to amend their constitutions or enact measure designed to single out and exclude same-sex couples from marriage law, clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment.

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

The issue is that there is no such thing as gay "marriage". Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, period.

 

[AmyNation]

First off if you are a gay man you ALREADY enjoy the same exact rights as I have, and that EVERY other man in this nation has, which is the right to marry any woman that will have you. If you are a gay female you ALREADY have the same exact rights as any other woman in this nation has, and that is the right to marry any man that will have you. Same rights for ALL citizens, gay, straight, bi or a-sexual. As for baby Jesus Crying, He was a baby, I'm sure He cried all the time like any other baby did.

And the issue is those rights aren’t being acknowledged by the state; and in some cases states have gone so far as to amend their constitutions or enact measure designed to single out and exclude same-sex couples from marriage law, clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment.

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

The issue is that there is no such thing as gay "marriage". Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, period.

Only recently.

Used to be a a contact between a man and a woman's father
A man and several women
Only between people of the same color

Besides, who cares what it is? We change it all the time. It didn't used to involve the goverment at all, now it does.

 

[Rinata]

Leftists want to force Americans to condone perversion, sodomy..

I've never heard Paul Ryan described as a "leftist" before. Interesting.

You're a dumbo and so early in the morning.. I don't give a damn who condones homosexuality.. left, right.. doesn't make it right.. nor will it ever.

If you don't think so, then don't do it!!! Other than that, leave others alone. Their sex lives have nothing to do with you. Your saying that it is not right is not impressive. Who cares what you think?? You bat crap crazies either need to get over yourselves or get therapy. It is not normal to be so obsessed with the sex lives of others.

 

[Political Junky]

And the issue is those rights aren’t being acknowledged by the state; and in some cases states have gone so far as to amend their constitutions or enact measure designed to single out and exclude same-sex couples from marriage law, clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment.

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

The issue is that there is no such thing as gay "marriage". Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, period.

Only recently.

Used to be a a contact between a man and a woman's father
A man and several women
Only between people of the same color

Besides, who cares what it is? We change it all the time. It didn't used to involve the goverment at all, now it does.

Cons like to forget those facts, don't they? Fear not, your post will be ignored.

 

[jtpr312]

The issue is that there is no such thing as gay "marriage". Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, period.

Only recently.

Used to be a a contact between a man and a woman's father
A man and several women
Only between people of the same color

Besides, who cares what it is? We change it all the time. It didn't used to involve the goverment at all, now it does.

Cons like to forget those facts, don't they? Fear not, your post will be ignored.

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

 

[bodecea]

Only recently.

Used to be a a contact between a man and a woman's father
A man and several women
Only between people of the same color

Besides, who cares what it is? We change it all the time. It didn't used to involve the goverment at all, now it does.

Cons like to forget those facts, don't they? Fear not, your post will be ignored.

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

Tell us again...how does our legal marriage affect your legal/religious marriage in any way?

 

[jtpr312]

Cons like to forget those facts, don't they? Fear not, your post will be ignored.

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

Tell us again...how does our legal marriage affect your legal/religious marriage in any way?

You doing dope doesn't effect me in any way either yet that's not allowed, you going to a prostitute doesn't effect me in any way either yet it's not premitted, so what's your point? My point is that two gays living together as a couple is not a marriage and never will be recognized as such by any sane and rational person. I have no problem with civil unions that bestow some of the tax benefits that married couples enjoy, but those unions will never be marriage regardless of what some liberal judge rules.

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

Tell us again...how does our legal marriage affect your legal/religious marriage in any way?

You doing dope doesn't effect me in any way either yet that's not allowed, you going to a prostitute doesn't effect me in any way either yet it's not premitted, so what's your point? My point is that two gays living together as a couple is not a marriage and never will be recognized as such by any sane and rational person. I have no problem with civil unions that bestow some of the tax benefits that married couples enjoy, but those unions will never be marriage regardless of what some liberal judge rules.

In God's eyes gay marriage is not marriage either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

Tell us again...how does our legal marriage affect your legal/religious marriage in any way?

You doing dope doesn't effect me in any way either yet that's not allowed, you going to a prostitute doesn't effect me in any way either yet it's not premitted, so what's your point? My point is that two gays living together as a couple is not a marriage and never will be recognized as such by any sane and rational person. I have no problem with civil unions that bestow some of the tax benefits that married couples enjoy, but those unions will never be marriage regardless of what some liberal judge rules.

It will likely be a conservative justice.

In God's eyes gay marriage is not marriage either.

Which is not at issue.

 

[rdean]

Don't you hate these hate groups?

Republicans with a loud and resounding "NO!"

 

[GuyPinestra]

Lol, my hatred of gays? That's rich. You don't know me, you don't know a damn thing about me, I never posted one word saying I hate gays, but you automatically judge me as hating gays. I can see you're just one more bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant jackass. I don't need to show any societal harm to society to know that their is no such thing as a gay marriage. I have no problems with gay unions allowing the same tax benefits as married couples, but two people of the same gender living together as a couple is not a marriage. Please don't confuse my grasp of reality with hatred

No one believes that you don't hate homosexuals, son. It's obvious you do.

And learn how to use html tagging correctly, would you please?

Being rational? Saying two lesbians or two sodomites shackig up together is a marriage does not mean you are being rational either slick. As for the homos. Loving vs Virginia, though gay marraige may become the law of the land someday, it's not in the same category as Loving vs Virginia because that WAS a civil rights issue based on denying some men and woman equal protection under the law, while that is not the case with homosexual marriage, as homosexuals right now share the same exact rights all other citizens have. Gay men have the same rights as straight men, and gay woman have the same rights as straight woman. If it ever becomes the law of the land, it will based on the redifintion of the word marriage, and not on any denial of rights and it will be enacted by the same types of judges that decided the right to slaughter a baby in the womb is some how tied to a woman's right to privacy. In other words, ignorant, politically motivated activist judges who base their decsions on their own immoralities, poltiical views and party affiliations and not on any real reading of the Constitution or the intents of the Founders.

You are completely wrong that gays have equal protection under the law. They cannot file a federal married tax return, they are not entitled to spousal Social Security death benefits, and a whole raft of other privileges extended to other married people are denied to them.

So this is a civil rights issues EXACTLY like interracial marriage. Bigots like you used to whine about marriage being redefined for interracial couples, too. "Marriage has always between two people of the same race!!!"

And just like you, your bigoted predecessors were unable to provide a rational reason for why that should be so. "We've always done it that way" is a stupid reason for perpetuating discrimination. Since the bigots could not provide a rational reason for why that discrimination should be continued, marriage benefits under the law had to be extended to interracial marriages just as they will have to be provided to gay marriages.

There is no difference.

.

I've said it a hundred times on this board, I couldn't care LESS if gays 'get married'. I think they should get the exact same benefits any other married couple gets, taxes, benefits, rights, the whole shooting match.

But if you think gays are not in our schools trying to 'proselytize', teaching prepubescent kids that gay sex is 'normal', you haven't looked at the curriculum in California lately.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Illegals are voting!
Illegals are commiting crimes!
Illegals don't pay taxes!
Illegals are getting welfare!

All true, and all illegal. Should we just ignore it?

 

[Gadawg73]

Only recently.

Used to be a a contact between a man and a woman's father
A man and several women
Only between people of the same color

Besides, who cares what it is? We change it all the time. It didn't used to involve the goverment at all, now it does.

Cons like to forget those facts, don't they? Fear not, your post will be ignored.

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

My marriage for 36 years has been one man and one woman.
I am so confident in my marriage, my faith and my religious beliefs that allowing 2 people of the same sex that happen to love each other to marry has NO affect on me and my wife.
Same with everyone else. Show me how gay marriage has ANY effect on any other marriage anywhere.
But let's get this straight. ALL marriage is same sex marriage. The same sex over and over and over again.
It is a long and tedious meal with dessert at the beginning.
You must be a liberal. You support a Constitutional Amendment to take rights AWAY from a certain group of folk you do not like, to ban gay marriage. You want to take a document, The United States Constitution, a document DEDICATED to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than TELL THE GOVERNMENT what it can not do.
Old women with nothing else to do but gossip are interested in such things as gay marriage.
Us southern red necks prefer to mind our own business.
Gay marriage is weird as it gets but who gives a shit? None of anyone's business and AFFECTS NO ONE.

 

[Noomi]

It's not going to be ingored and it's not that cons forget the facts, it's that we actually KNOW the facts and the facts are ususally quite different than what the liberal or the sodomite put forth. It doesn't matter that the "contract" was between a man and a woman's father, the marriage was STILL between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was practiced, and for that matter polyandry is also irelevent as it was STILL a union between a man and a woman just done multiple times, and interacial marriage is also still a union between a man and a woman. What does any of this have to do with making marriage something it's never been, a union between two members of the same gender?

Tell us again...how does our legal marriage affect your legal/religious marriage in any way?

You doing dope doesn't effect me in any way either yet that's not allowed, you going to a prostitute doesn't effect me in any way either yet it's not premitted, so what's your point? My point is that two gays living together as a couple is not a marriage and never will be recognized as such by any sane and rational person. I have no problem with civil unions that bestow some of the tax benefits that married couples enjoy, but those unions will never be marriage regardless of what some liberal judge rules.

Why isn't two men living together considered a 'marriage'? Why not?

 

[Noomi]

Tell us again...how does our legal marriage affect your legal/religious marriage in any way?

You doing dope doesn't effect me in any way either yet that's not allowed, you going to a prostitute doesn't effect me in any way either yet it's not premitted, so what's your point? My point is that two gays living together as a couple is not a marriage and never will be recognized as such by any sane and rational person. I have no problem with civil unions that bestow some of the tax benefits that married couples enjoy, but those unions will never be marriage regardless of what some liberal judge rules.

In God's eyes gay marriage is not marriage either.

Yes but God is not relevant to most people.